Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of amount of compensation against the judgment and award dated 26.4.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa in Claim Petition No. 313/96 by which a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant. 2. The facts in short are that on 3.7.1996 the claimant/appellant with others were coming from Agra to Jaipur in Bus No. U.R.T. 1127. The respondent No. 1, driver of the Bus, was driving the Bus rashly and negligently. Because of his negligent driving when the Bus reached near Sanwas Pulia, it went on wrong side and hit the Tractor standing on the side of the road. Because of this collusion, the appellant and others sustained serious injuries out of whom, two persons died. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of accident, the appellant was 56 years of age and was working as Fitter Gr. III in Railway Department. His monthly salary at that time was Rs. 4000/-. He has sustained serious injuries on all parts of his body. He remained hospitalized. He was operated thrice and his leg has been shorten by 4 inches. According to medical opinion, he has suffered 78% permanent disability. It was further stated that he had to remain on leave for 400 days and he could not get any salary for this period. Despite prolong treatment, he has not been fully recovered. The learned Tribunal has not assessed his injuries rightly and nothing has been awarded for loss of income and pay loss. He has suffered a huge pain and suffering as he had undertaken operations for three times. His leg was shorten by 4 inches and he had to remain in hospital for a long duration. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record especially the impugned judgment and award. 5. It has been stated that the appellant had to remain on leave for 400 days and he could not get any salary for this period. But, no document in support of this contention has been placed on record. No salary slip has been placed which can show that there was any deduction on account of loss of salary. Same is the situation regarding loss of income. But, no document in support of this contention has been placed on record. No salary slip has been placed which can show that there was any deduction on account of loss of salary. Same is the situation regarding loss of income. Nothing has been produced before the Tribunal. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly not assessed by compensation for loss of salary or income. 6. It was also stated that the appellant has to pay dietary charges when he remained in hospital but no such document has been produced before the Tribunal. Hence, no infirmity has been caused by the Tribunal in not assessing the compensation in the head of dietary charges. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the permanent disability of the appellant and has awarded Rs. 1 Lac for that. 7. It has been stated that the appellant remained in hospital from July, 1996 to November, 1997 and he undertook operations three times. Hence, he has suffered serious physical discomfort and mental agony. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 30,000/- for the same. But, looking to the gravity of the physical discomfort and mental agony which was experienced by the appellant, the amount under this should be Rs. 60,000/-. Thus, the increase in the compensation under this head is Rs. 60,000 - 30,000 = Rs. 30,000/-. There is no need to enhance any compensation under other statutory heads. They will remain same. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation under the head of physical discomfort and mental agony is enhanced by Rs. 30,000/- alongwith the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of appeal till actual payment is made.